Hypothetical indeed
 

It is of course useless to expect a discussion of anyone’s personal religious beliefs to be rational. But the long, circuitous route taken here in an attempt to infuse a broad swath of Asian rug designs with a personal mythology must be unique among rug world fantasies. It surpasses the most absurd bazaar merchants’ fanciful sales pitches.

FINALLY we have been treated to Horst Nitz’s long promised “full disclosure” of his theory on Nestorian Christian roots of rug design. But what a disappointment this joke has proven to be. Garbled, inconsistent references in the past have merely been amplified by his unveiling of the mystery rug supposedly holding all the answers. We are shown a very ordinary late 19th/early 20th century Herki Kurd soumak kilim half as proof of what he says occurred many centuries ago. Never mind that its central motif is clearly a corruption of a well-known Persian workshop carpet design.

Horst has suggested that one should “build hypotheses on fresh facts and not on preconceived ideas.” Sounds good. In this essay, however, there is clearly not a single “fresh fact” to lend credence to the notion that we should regard his Herki (Herke) medallion as a “Christ symbol.” It requires a vivid imagination indeed to then find the same sets of disjointed elements in the 19 rugs at the end of the essay. Actually the closest Horst comes to disclosing how he arrived at his “insight”: “Maybe Christ has inherited the symbolic white color of the sun at midday from the [Akkadian god] Shamas themes together with the Mesopotamian type mighty horns as a symbol of divinity.”

He states that one can trace early Nestorian missionaries’ routes during Sasanian times (over 1300 years ago) by noting wherever the “Symbol of Jesus Christ” or SEGMENTS of this motif appear in 19th and 20th century rugs. Judging from his illustrations that would seem to include the locations of nomad and village weavers throughout most of Western and Central Asia. His illustrations, I should note, include the most elemental of slit-tapestry-derived forms.

As for Horst’s “rare” Herki soumak find, back in the 1980s and 1990s there were large numbers of late 19th and early 20th century examples on the market in Turkey—both soumak and slit-tapestry pieces, both from southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. Nearly all were in the same two-part karyola kilim size displayed by his kilim half. A majority featured similar palettes, similar border systems, similar weave structures and similar weave balances. Many even had the same peculiar random use of bright orange in their warps. Herki Kurds were hardly a “hitherto unheard Kurdish group” as Horst has said, since they are one of the largest Kurdish groups. A couple of Kurdish dealers from the Hakkari area who specialized in these pieces had large stacks of them in their Istanbul hans in the 1980s; nearly everyone in the business was familiar with them. Since these weavings displayed a full range of motifs copied from many different traditions, it’s difficult to view his example as any different from the rest. I see no basis for regarding his motif as indigenous (having originated in those communities), when the rest are not. Since few of these pieces were very highly regarded or sought out by connoisseurs, they were not widely promoted or featured in publications. Prices were low and their sturdy weaves, useable sizes and pleasant colors made them quick sellers to dealers like me who were on tight budgets in fledgling businesses. Pieces like the one we have been shown were definitely not “rare” or unknown, as Horst has said. Their identities were never in doubt within knowledgeable Turkish/Kurdish rug circles.

Marla

Hi Marla

You are totally to the point right.
When I first read Horst text I was confused because i couldn't find the illustrations of the ancient Nestorian piece that had been "unearthed”, and I was rather baffled when I understood it was the piece which I suppose most here would simply guesstimate optimistically to late 19th c.

best Martin

Fresh Facts???
 

I’m still hunting for the “fresh facts” offered by Horst to convince us that his Herki rug features the “Christ symbol” supposedly distributed to weavers throughout Western and Central Asia by Nestorian missionaries in the early years of the religion--the Sassanian Era years prior to 651. All questions of accommodation and assimilation of the “symbol” are irrelevant unless its original form and meanings are established. Recitations of church history are irrelevant. He admits in his essay that “No exact equivalent” to the complex Nestorian “Symbol of Christ” in his rug is known. So let’s look at the list of places he says we might find parts or pieces of it:

1. An ascension scene in a book illustration attributable to a West Syrian orthodox religious group “from which the Nestorians were divided by schism.”
2. A 9th/10th century silver plate from Kyrgystan.
3. An 8th century altar border with “S” forms similar to some textile borders.
4. 8th to 9th century Egyptian Coptic or Syrian textile roundels with “themes in the tradition of the Alexander myth.”
5. “Angled jigsaw forms which may represent the Akkadian god Shamash’s emblem, the arc-shaped pruning saw…or that might represent a simplified palmette motif.”

He does not illustrate any of the above, but goes on to show images of a few earlier objects to further substantiate his ideas on the origin of his “Christian” symbol:

6. A coin with a horned god from Trace (306-281BC).
7. A horned “tiara” that may have been similar to one described in the epic of Gilgamesh.
8. A bronze Mesopotamian helmet with horns (c. 2370-1800 BC).
9. A Mesopotamian cylinder seal (c. 1300-1200 BC) depicting a winged goddess with horns.
10. A stone sculpture representing a horned Assyrian god.

These sources provided the basis for the HORST NITZ COMPLEX CHRIST SYMBOL? Astonishing!

Marla

PS. Correction: The objects listed as numbers 1 and 3 above were shown at the end of Horst's SALON essay. There was, however, no indication given as to how they might be relevant to the discussion.

Cutting the pseudo-archaeological lingo (“rug unearthed, C14-dating, reconnaissance tour”) from Horst story I suppose “local informants” translates to: Rug dealers in 1980 Van sold Horst a rug. A rug that Horst has spend 34 years trying to give deep and symbolic meaning. Well we all have our subjective pleasures with our rugs, I suppose especially if we have bought them on our journeys. But going directly from unsustained subjective fantasies and interpretations presented as "Epistemology and Method" to an “alternative model of developmental rug history” is, if its not all a strange joke, to put it mildly far out ambitious.

best Martin
(sorry for keep posting to this discussion, but Horst has wasted a lot of my time trying to take his posts in this forum serious)

Hi Marla.

I agree totally with you.
Only thing, your points 1 and 3 are illustrated in Plate 34 and 35 of Horst’s salon, I think
Regards,
Filiberto

Horst you haven’t yet brought a single fact to the discussion of your essay which could sustain that your soumak originates from the Christian Mountain Nestorians, only highly questionable interpretations and evasive theological material. And Marla’s description of the rug stands undisputed:

Hardly the description of a rug worthy of being the sole center of an “alternative model of developmental rug history”?

Martin

Horst, I am sure you are a busy man and you don’t have many time on your hands, but this is your Salon and you should have the courtesy to answer to anyone.

I hope you don’t use your time only selectively, like answering the easy matters while ignoring the most embarrassing ones. I know you do that, as I speak from personal experience. And you have been already warned at the time.

If you don’t know what to answer, at least acknowledge the questions and excuse yourself.

Another thing: last (mini) salon lasted for a very long time, for technical reasons. We are resuming our normal speed, and this one will be closed shortly. Your time is running out.
Regards,

Filiberto

Before the discussion closes I would like to summarize my critique of Horst’s essay here:

1.: Horst suggest that early Christian Nestorians in 2-3rd c constructs a highly sophisticated and complex composite symbol with “function as a woven catechism”. A composite symbol which they as missionaries spread all over the known rug world. But only the Mountain Nestorians in eastern Anatolia keeps this fantastic composite symbol intact - weaving exact copies of exact copies of exact copies uptil late 19th-early 20th c. Ending up in Horst's miraculously singular and uniquely symbolic intact Nestorian catechistic soumak.

2.: The Mountain Nestorians have since 1830 been visited by western priests and missionaries who only went there because they had a special interest in the ancient religious customs and beliefs of the Mountain Nestorians. Historically and theologically interested western Christians that had nothing but the deepest sympathized interest in all aspects of the Mountain Nestorians religious beliefs. Some lived there for decades, and they have delivered detailed accounts of their observations (literature here http://www.jelleverheij.info/pictures/Kocanis.html ) None of them mentions anything whatsoever which could sustain the existence of Horst marvelous and sophisticated “woven catechism” - on the contrary they strain that the only religious symbol ever used by the Mountain Nestorians is a plain and simple cross.

What happen? Did the Mountain Nestorians suddenly get ashamed of their “woven catechism” which they had so piously reverend by weaving exact copies of exact copies for 1600 years? Perhaps ashamed by their theologically strange version of strict mosaic law that indulges in multiplications of depictions of physically birth-giving Marys? So ashamed that they had to totally hide all the rugs in the 75 years they were visited by western fellow Christians?

Of course not, what happened is that Horst has delivered us a fantasy, a fantasy which in essence is non-sense, in the absurdly pretentious form of his eassy

best Martin

Hi Marla, Filiberto

Please accept my apologies. I am looking forward to posting a qualified answer soon. It really is time only, nothing like selectivity, ambarassement or answering being too difficult.

Regards,

Horst

Since Horst has not responded to any of my comments above, I should perhaps expand on them.

His attempt to connect his soumak kilim with ancient Nestorians is so illogical and befuddled that it’s difficult to follow. He has said that his kilim came from a dealer in the city of Van in 1980 who identified it as Herki, a “hitherto unheard Kurdish group.” Unheard of, though this group is the largest Kurdish group second only to Jaff Kurds!? This dealer’s lack of knowledge may actually not be so surprising, since most of the large Herki population is located in Iraq and in Iran, rather than in southeast Anatolia.

When Horst bought his soumak kilim, he was somehow led to believe that it was REALLY RARE, and REALLY OLD, though he tells us it “has not been carbon dated”! He apparently didn’t notice those bright synthetic orange sections of warp yarns. Years later, still unfamiliar with the market for nomadic flatweaves in Turkey, he apparently remained convinced his soumak kilim was RARE since he couldn’t find a similar piece in a “Kurdish pattern catalog.” His footnote directs us to William Eagleton’s 1988 book which is hardly a “catalog” of such things. Eagleton, preoccupied with pile rugs, shows several Herki knotted-pile rugs from Iraq, but just one kilim (dated 1981)—hardly representative of the prolific nomadic tribe’s production. He illustrates Hartushi kilims from southeastern Anatolia, but no Herki examples at all from Anatolia. Eagleton does show a Kurdish knotted-pile rug from the “Barzani tribe” in Iraq with the familiar “Qashqai” medallion.

Although a long list of small Kurdish tribal groups have been documented as residing in the two most southeastern provinces of Turkey, Turkish/Kurdish rug dealers sell kilims from this area labelled simply as Van, Van/Hakkari or Hartushi. Van and Hakkari are the province names; Hartushi are the dominant Kurdish tribal groups in the Hakkari region. The relatively small number of Herki Kurds in Anatolia are scattered, with some living north of Lake Van, another small contingent in the far southeast corner of the country, and a few more on the Iraq border. The Nestorian settlements on which Horst has focused were located in the mountains not far from the town of Hakkari, presumably surrounded by the numerous Hartushi Kurds—not Herki.

It is in Iraq that Herki Kurds exist in huge numbers, and indeed are the dominant tribe. Although Kurdish pile rugs made in Iraq were routinely marketed in Baghdad, many of the nomadic Herki flatweaves from north of Mosul and Erbil have been marketed in Turkey over the years. As I mentioned previously, I know personally that since the early 80s they’ve been readily available in Istanbul, as I bought several of them there. In recent years they’ve appeared in somewhat smaller numbers, usually reaching the Turkish markets as part of illicit PKK weapons trafficking. As you can imagine, under such conditions, precise information on the location of specific weavings within Iraq is impossible. Eagleton admitted repeatedly in his 1988 book that even in Iraq information about Kurdish tribal pieces was skimpy: he remarked that dealers in Mosul who bundle and send pieces to Baghdad “know little of their origins.”

So Horst’s Herki soumak kilim purchase reached the Van market “in connection with a military operation”? No surprise. Military skirmishes with the PKK involving their smuggling activities have been occurring along the Turkey/Iraq border regularly for many, many years. The major point here: Like other Herki Kurd kilims, Horst’s soumak kilim bought in Van almost certainly came from Iraq…NOT from the isolated area of Nestorian settlements in Turkey.

Marla

Hi Marla,

being a rug dealer yourself you may probably take a different view than me, to whom the trade is a notoriously unreliable source when it comes to attribution, especially when minor ethnic groups are concerned. I quote from Eagleton (1983): Those dealers in Baghdad who will hazard a guess beyond the simple designation "northern Iraq" usually assign Kurdish weavings to one of four categories: 1. Jaf, 2. Herki, 3. Dizai, and 4. "North of Mosul" or "Jazira." Indiscriminating collecting practices similar to industrial tuna fishing, not only stripped peasants and nomads off their heritage for profit, but also regularly destroyed valuable context information. It is easy to imagine, how a Mountain Nestorian or a Jessidi rug would have become a "standard" Herki rug etc. that fitted a known label that would sell.

I would be interested to take a look at what standard Herki rugs you have in mind, that are in the same group with the one I am describing. And whilst we are at it, would you mind to let me know your interpretation of those apparently Nestorian crosses in the rug, and especially the Patriarchal cross in the top rosette, from a Herki perspective? Also the birth giving scene is interesting. The liberal public presentation of an intimate body function is no violation of a Kurdish sense of modestiy as Hansen (1961) claims and as I have learned in my university courses?

Yes, the Herki are one of the biggest tribal federations in Northern Iraq, and of course they were that before 1980. It was the rug trade in Turkey and elsewhere to whom they were an unknown entity before 1980. The oldest publication of a Herki rug I know of is in the 1982 Turkish language edition of Belkis Acar's book on flatweaves. That one and all the others like in 'Discoveries From Kurdish Looms' by Robert Biggs (1983), the later Eagleton book (1988) etc. depict Herki rugs that look completly different to mine. During my training I had heard of the Herki before (Fields 1952) and had actually seen a Herki tribesman from Iraq - as a photograph in my much worshipped 1959 edition of Freya Stark's 'Riding to the Tigris.' I had not the slightest idea though, what kind of rugs they were weaving.

More soon.

Horst

Horst,

You’ve asked, “…Would you mind to let me know your interpretation of those apparently Nestorian crosses in the rug, and especially the Patriarchal cross in the top rosette, from a Herki perspective?

This is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Why should anyone—you or I—INTERPRET any motif in a work from a culture not our own—especially one with which we have so little familiarity? “From a Herki perspective!!!?” I’m not a Herki Kurd. I’ve really had it with all this totally unfounded mythical/religious/superstitious nonsense. And fanciful invented histories. This stuff really does detract from the weavings. If a weaver tells me that a certain motif in her weaving has a particular meaning, fine. THAT’S worth noting. Otherwise, forget it. I need more than vague fantasies and really dislike seeing rug literature and discussions filled with fairy tales. And CROSSES!!! Simple, basic motifs with intersecting vertical and horizontal elements have appeared in weavings all around the world and hardly demand INTERPRETING.

“APPARENTLY Nestorian crosses”??? In my last post I explained why your Soumak rug is VERY unlikely to be a “Nestorian” weaving.

------------------------------------

As for marketplace information: I agree that dealers’ information is often not the most reliable. Unless the merchants have gotten pieces at the source themselves or have done substantial field work. Pickers who furnish them with pieces are notoriously vague with their information, since they rarely want to disclose their sources. But with the flatweaves under discussion, marketplace information is about all we have. I have not done field work in either the Hakkari area or northern Iraq. Have you? Moreover, I don’t know anyone who has. Just about everything that’s been published is superficial. Several authors have mentioned what “prolific weavers” the large nomadic Herki population in Iraq has been, but then they fail to illustrate the works. For the record, although they do show Herki pile rugs, Eagleton has illustrated just ONE Herki kilim; the Biggs publication shows ZERO. Eagleton complained repeatedly about the difficulty in getting accurate information, and tells us that he relied on a Herki weaver friend to help identify rugs in the Baghdad markets. So I don’t know where to suggest that there is reliable published information. All I know is that Kurdish dealers in Turkey had substantial numbers of Herki soumak and slit-tapestry kilims for sale in the 80s and early 90s. Whether or not they were selling them before that, I can’t say. As I mentioned before, since the pieces were inexpensive and not particularly sought after, nobody bothered to publish them. My own images of Herki kilim purchases were in 35mm slide form, and I’ve donated my slide collections to a new textile museum in Mexico. But since I was certainly not the only one buying Herki kilims, photos must exist somewhere.

Marla

(sorry to interfere, this post is just intended to readers of this discussion who may not know who Marla Mallet is)

Horst is here rhetorically reducing Marla to a “notoriously unreliable source”

Marla Mallet is one of the very very few international recognized rug scholars who participate in this forum. Her book “Woven Structure” based on her technical expertise and her actual field work in Anatolia is by far simply the book on the subject of flatweave technique.

Horst is, like myself, a happy amateur.

best Martin

Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is a false argument.

There is nothing to interpret or demonstrate. The burden of proof that the crosses are Nestorian or Patriarchal Nestorian rests entirely on Horst, there is NO NEED for anybody else to demonstrate the contrary or give any other interpretation.

Same for the “birth-giving scene” (not birth-giving Mary anymore?).
Horst only has to demonstrate that it is what he says – and so far he doesn’t seem to convince anyone.

To give a practical (hypothetical) example of what I meant in my previous post.

Horst: "Those are Nestorian crosses."

Me: "I don’t think so. Prove it."

Horst: "And how can you explain that those are apparently Nestorian crosses? What is your interpretation?"

Wrong answer, if you fall for the trick: “Those are… (whatever)”. Thus prolonging the discussion and distracting from the crucial matter: the lack of a real proof.

Right answer: “But it’s YOU who says that those are Nestorian crosses! Never mind what is my interpretation. Prove it.”

Filiberto
P.S. Marla’s answer was very good as usual.

Marla,

right: I sympathize, but let us add popperianism and empiricism to the list.

partially right: Plate 47 Shows an "Herki Tribe Iraqi Kurdish Pile and Flat-woven Bag Face." It has the same outer border as my rug, only simplified; I also know the design within the compartments from several other sumak pieces. Only, I think it is not a Herki bag-face, but a Nestorian profane weave like the others I know. Posting an image of plate 47 would be no good, since I have the Biggs catalogue as an 30 years old b/w copy only. If you or someone else has the original, it would be interesting to compare.

Horst

Horst - by your “methodology” you could probably identify lots and lots of Mountain Nestorian pieces - a tiny cross here and a tiny cross there, and whoops! a border resemblance over there - on and on. But the problem is that there simply is absolutely no whatsoever evidence for any connection to the Mountain Nestorians - except in your imagination.

And the quality of your imagination you have provided us with multiple samples of in your essay, for example the fantasy that a local weaving tradition could consist of true copies of true copies for 1600 years

Martin

Hi Marla,

let us look at a completly different rug, what is it in your opinion?


http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00135/Pict0321-3.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00135/PICT0325.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00135/PICT0326.jpg


Regards,

Horst

Falsificationism? Not in this forum
 

Hi Horst,

In my reading of those who have responded to your thesis, I don't believe that anyone has expected you to provide a criterion for Popperian empirical falsifiability. All that has been requested is the sort of substantial and coherent evidence that are required to support any historical interpretation. Instead, you have often presupposed the very premises that need to be convincingly demonstrated.

In saying this, I'm merely agreeing with what Marla, Filiberto, Martin and others have already presented, but I wanted to place any diversionary objection to Popper, positivism, empiricism and scientism off the table.

Joel

Horst,

The soumak piece you’ve just posted above is Iraqi Kurd, presumably from one of the many large Herki tribes in the north. Why? What’s the point? As I mentioned before, those groups produced very large numbers of works using motifs borrowed from everywhere. They used banded layouts, overall patterns and medallions. They used several structures, including soumak, brocading, slit tapestry, knotting and combinations. It’s not individual motifs or layouts that are telling; it’s the distinctive weave structures, materials, dyes, weave balances and style that distinguish them. In spite of the variety, they display a general character and approach that’s immediately recognizable to anyone who has seen a bunch of them. It’s not unusual to see lots of assorted design material crammed in, whether in banded layouts such as this, or as background fillers in medallion designs like your SALON soumak. As I mentioned before, since there has been almost NO fieldwork done in northern Iraq, and because so many of those weavings have left the country via illicit trafficking, it’s absurd to think that we can attribute nomadic Iraqi Kurd weavings to specific groups or locations, unless we've acquired them from individuals who got them at the source. It’s easy, though, to separate these pieces from Anatolian weavings.

Even with a fuzzy photo, there’s one tell-tale feature discernible on this piece: the fragments of a warp finish on the lower end: a couple of heavy square braids with triangular wrapped bases. I’ve shown close-ups of this kind of finish on my website, half-way down this page: www.marlamallett.com/ef-wrapp.htm. Among other finishes, this distinctive detail seems unique to Iraqi weavers—used at least by the Herkis and their neighboring Yazidis. It’s unfortunate that the warps on your SALON soumak piece have been trimmed.

While you’re looking at that end finish on the website, take a look at the very typical Herki slit-tapestry banded kilim from which it came--one with the same distinctive blue/terracotta/orange palette as on your SALON Soumak. Too bad the photo is so tiny…I don’t have another. Incidentally, this was a two-part karyola kilim, just as was yours. I originally had both parts. It may seem strange, but these Herki two-part kilims sometimes had narrow borders on both sides of each half.

Marla

Hi Marla,

thanks. What the point is? I wanted to see whether we are talking about the same thing - we are. The slit kelim looks like an almost contemporary interpretation of the banded soumak type. I'll post an image of an earlier two-part soumak eventually. The closeness of some of those banded designs to Shasevan soumaks is remarkable.

I do love your website.

Horst

Thank you Horst.
I see this discussion isn't going anywhere.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience.
This salon is now closed.

Filiberto